the internal and mutual relations of the three, and that all extraneous operations, although in ordinary speech attributed chiefly to one or the other, belong in reality to all in common. Other modes of maintaining the Divine unity are found in theories of subordination, and of a modal Trinity. The latter kind of theory is frequently called, from its chief ancient representative, Sabellian. These systems, however, have been condemned as unorthodox, and none of them is now sufficiently prominent to merit particular attention. We must now proceed to notice, though necessarily in a very summary way, the arguments which are appealed to in connexion with this dogma. I. The Biblical Argument is founded on a variety of passages by which, severally, one or other of the various propositions contained in the dogma of the Trinity is supposed to be established, and these are then brought together so as to present one coherent view. We cannot here deal with the interpretation of particular passages, which would more properly come under review in a commentary, and we must now confine ourselves to general considerations, affecting groups of passages and the broad characteristics of the argument. 1. There are several passages where God, and Christ, and the Spirit are mentioned together, and it is said that where they are thus co-ordinated the Holy Spirit must be regarded as a person.1 The value of this argument depends entirely on literary usage, for there is nothing except a feeling of literary fitness to forbid a man's speaking of the personal and the impersonal in juxtaposition. When Hooker says, in a letter to the Archbishop, God and nature did not intend me for contentions,' and Izaak Walton says of him 'God and nature blest him,'2 it would be rash to infer 1 See Matt. iii. 16 with its parallels, xxviii. 19; Rom. xv. 30; I Cor. xii. 4-6; II Cor. xiii. 14; Eph. ii. 21, 22; Titus iii. 4-6; I Pet. i. 2; Jude 20, 21. 2 Life of Hooker, in Keble's edition, pp. 85 and 98. that these writers believed in the separate personality of nature, although the former even goes so far as to ascribe intention to it. So, in the New Testament, Paul is reported as saying, in his address at Miletus, 'I commend you to God and to the word of his grace.'1 In Ephesians2 he speaks of 'one body, and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.' Are we to infer that faith and baptism are persons, and that because they come between the Lord and the Father they are included in the Godhead? In I John v. 8 we are told that 'there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood.' According to the rule the water and the blood must be persons, especially as they are not only co-ordinated with the Spirit, which is said to be personal, but, although neuters, are treated as masculine, oi μaptupoûvtes, oi tpeîs. The fact is, this kind of personification is of such perpetual occurrence, and so easily suggests itself, that we frequently fail to notice it. There are numerous instances in the Epistles of Paul ; and we may judge from this how precarious is any argument founded on a passing ascription of personal attributes to the Holy Spirit. Among passages of this kind, however, there is reason for laying special stress on the one containing the baptismal formula, Baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.' 3 The interpretation of these words must depend partly on the date which we assign to them. They have no parallel in the other Gospels, and there is no trace of the use of this formula in baptism anywhere else in the New Testament. These facts are hardly consistent with the supposition that Christ himself gave the commandment which is here recorded. I am therefore inclined to attribute the account to a Greek recension of Matthew of rather late date; and if this view be correct, it is not unlikely that the writer believed in the separate personality of the Spirit. But this is not proved, as is contended, by the use of the word 'name,' which it is said 1 Acts xx. 32. 2 iv. 4-6. 3 Matthew xxviii. 19. can be applied only to a person. The most that can be claimed is that the Greek term is applicable only to a proper name; and no one would deny that the Holy Spirit' was a proper, and not a generic name. The Greek word, ovoμa, is constantly used of the names of towns and other places both in the LXX and in the New Testament. It is applied to Manna in Exodus xvi. 31; and in Psalm lxxi. 18, 19, we have this instructive instance of its use in relation to an impersonal attribute, immediately following a personal reference, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel . . . and blessed be the name of his glory.' In Revelation iii. 12 we meet with this combination, 'I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem . . . and my new name,' so that we have a trinity consisting of God, the new Jerusalem, and Christ, each distinguished by the term 'name.' To give a more modern instance, in the Book of Common Prayer, in the service for the ordering of priests, the bishop says to those who are to receive the order, 'Ye shall answer plainly to these things, which we, in the Name of God, and of his Church, shall demand of you.' These examples are sufficient to show how precarious is an argument founded simply on our own idea of literary propriety. 2. In passages too numerous to refer to, God and Christ are mentioned together in a way which undoubtedly implies an intimate relation between them; and the only question is whether this relation implies in Christ coeternity and coequality with God, or even a nature essentially superhuman. Here again we must be guided by literary and religious usage. The more profoundly we apprehend the infinity of God, the more disinclined we are to name any other along with him; but men who approach these subjects simply from the religious side do not shrink from speaking in the same breath of God and of those who are his agents 1 Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ Θεὸς Ἰσραήλ, . . . καὶ εὐλογητὸν τὸ ὄνομα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. Psalm 1xxii, in the English, which follows the Hebrew. K or his means of manifestation. I do not indeed know any precise parallel to the passages which we are considering; but then it is acknowledged on all hands that the relation of Christ to God was believed to be unique. There was only one Messiah; there was only one founder of Christianity; there was only one Lord whom all disciples acknowledged ; there was only one first-born Son, solitary in the fulness and creative power of his sonship. It was inevitable, therefore, that language should be used respecting him which has no complete parallel. But we may find some analogies in expressions which would be startling if we thought only of the infinitude which separates God from all dependent beings. In Exodus xiv. 31 we read, 'They believed in the Lord and in Moses his servant.' In Numbers xxi. 5 it is said, 'The people spake against God and against Moses,' which, from one point of view, is as incongruous as to say that they complained of the universe and of a speck of dust. Similarly, in the New Testament, we learn that Stephen was accused of speaking 'blasphemous words against Moses and God." 2 Our translators seem to have been a little shocked at this, for in both the Authorized and the Revised Version the word 'against' is repeated before 'God,' so that the two names may not, as in the Greek, be governed by one preposition. In Joshua ix. 23 (al. 29) we have, according to the reading of the LXX, 'There shall not fail from among you a slave or a woodcutter for me and my God.' In I Kings xxi. 10 and 13 Naboth is accused of cursing God and the king.' In I Chronicles xvi. II the commandment is given, 'Seek ye the Lord and his strength.' In the same book, xxix. 20, we are told that the people worshipped the Lord and the king.' In II Chronicles vi. 41 a material object is united with God-' Arise, O Lord 1 Ἐπίστευσαν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Μωυσῇ, in the LXX. 2 Acts vi. II. 3 8 οὐ μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἐξ ὑμῶν δοῦλος οὐδὲ ξυλοκόπος ἐμοὶ καὶ τῷ Θεῷ μου. The Hebrew has for the house of my God.' God, into thy resting-place, thou, and the ark of thy strength.' In Hosea iii. 5 we read,' Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king ; and shall come with fear unto the Lord and to his goodness.' We may observe in the latter clause how the personal being and the impersonal attribute are coupled. According to Luke's report, Christ said 'When he shall come in the glory of himself and the Father and the holy angels';1 and even if this ought to be corrected into the form in Matthew xvi. 27, it shows that this kind of combination was not felt to be unbecoming, and did not carry with it any doctrinal implication. The Apostles declare in their circular letter to the Churches that 'It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,' as though they were two co-ordinate authorities. In I Timothy v. 21 we read, 'I charge thee before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels.' In I Peter ii. 17 we find this combination, 'Love the brotherhood, fear God, honour the king.' Ignatius says, 'It becometh you . . . to cheer the soul of your bishop unto the honour of the Father [and to the honour] of Jesus Christ and of the Apostles.'3 again he says, 'It is good to know God and the bishop.'4 In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs we read, 'The Lord is witness, and his angels are witnesses, and I am witness.' In the Apostolical Constitutions the bishop is represented as the mediator' (peoirns) between God and the laity, as having regenerated' them unto the adoption of sons through water and spirit,' and as being an 'earthly god after God.' Such language might seem grossly irreverent; but it cannot have been so intended, and what it really indicates is a firm belief in the closeness of God's communion with man, exercised through certain agents. More recent examples might be multiplied. A few must suffice. Robert Guiscard styled himself, ' by the grace 1 ix. 26, ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῶν ἁγίων ἀγγέλων. 6 4 Smyrn. ix. 2 Acts xv. 28. And 5 Levi. xix. |